In the Int. of: D.E., a Minor

J-S36002-26 2026 PA Super 231 IN THE INTEREST OF: D.E., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : APPEAL OF: J.E., FATHER : : : : : : No. 910 MDA 2026 Appeal from the Order Entered May 15, 2026 In the Court of Common Pleas of Snyder County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-55-DP-0000005-2025 BEFORE: MURRAY, J., LANE, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.* OPINION BY MURRAY, J.: FILED: OCTOBER 16, 2026 J.E. (Father), biological father of D.E. (a son born in November 2024) (Child), appeals from the order granting Snyder County Children and Youth Services’ (CYS) motion for a finding of aggravated circumstances, based on Father’s conviction of aggravated assault – bodily injury to a child (AA).1 In this appeal, Appellant challenges the juvenile court’s determination that CYS timely filed its aggravated circumstances motion. After careful review, we affirm. ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(8). Under the Juvenile Act, aggravated circumstances exist if, inter alia, the “parent of the child has been convicted of” a felony under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702, “where the victim was a child[.]” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302. J-S36002-26 On May 23, 2025, CYS filed a dependency petition alleging that Child suffered serious physical neglect, and numerous physical injuries, while in the care of Father and O.B. (Mother) (collectively, Parents). See Dependency Petition, 5/23/25, at 2-3. According to CYS, on April 28, 2025, medical staff reported that Child had sustained fractures to his ribs, as well as a broken foot. Id. at 3. CYS alleged that during a criminal investigation, Father “confessed to squeezing [C]hild and hearing popping sounds on numerous occasions since [C]hild was born.” Id.; see also id. (averring that Mother detailed several instances of domestic abuse perpetrated by Father, one of which “involved [Mother] holding [Child] and [F]ather shoving [M]other”). In its dependency petition, CYS did not allege the existence of aggravated circumstances. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6334(b)(1)(i) (providing that “[a]n allegation of aggravated circumstances may be brought” in a dependency petition). The juvenile court conducted a shelter care hearing, after which the court ordered that Child be removed from Parents’ home and placed in foster care. Juvenile Court Order, 5/23/25, at 1-2. On May 28, 2025, following a hearing, the juvenile court adjudicated Child dependent, and ordered that legal and physical custody of Child remain with CYS. Juvenile Court Order, 5/28/25, at 1-2. Parents did not appeal. On March 12, 2026, CYS filed a motion requesting that the juvenile court enter a finding of aggravated circumstances as to Father. Motion for -2- J-S36002-26 Aggravated Circumstances Finding, 3/12/26. CYS alleged that “Father pled guilty to, and was sentenced by [o]rder dated March 3, 2026, to [AA].” Id. at 2; see also id., Exhibit A (Father’s sentencing order, reflecting that the trial court sentenced Father to 22 to 84 months in prison for AA, and that Father received an aggregate prison sentence of 3 to 14 years). On May 13, 2026, the matter proceeded to a hearing, at which Father was represented by court-appointed counsel. Child, who was approximately one-and-one-half years old at the time, did not appear, but was represented by his court-appointed guardian ad litem (GAL).2, 3 At the hearing, CYS requested that the juvenile court take judicial notice of documents filed in Father’s criminal case, including the information, guilty plea colloquy, and sentencing order. N.T., 5/13/26, at 2-3. Father conceded that the court was permitted to take judicial notice of the proffered documents, but argued that ____________________________________________ 2 In a dependency case, “a divergence of opinions between [a child’s] legal interests and best interests presents a conflict that necessitates the appointment of separate counsel ….” Interest of J.F., 308 A.3d 1252 (Pa. Super. 2024) (citations and quotation marks omitted). However, “if the preferred outcome of a child is incapable of ascertainment because the child is very young and pre-verbal, there can be no conflict between the child’s legal interests and his or her best interests[.]” In re T.S., 192 A.3d 1080, 1092 (Pa. 2018). 3 Child’s GAL did not file a motion asking the court to find the existence of aggravated circumstances, and did not formally join CYS’s motion. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6334(b)(2) (“The existence of aggravated circumstances may be alleged by the county agency or the child’s attorney.”). -3- J-S36002-26 CYS’s motion was untimely under Pa.R.J.C.P. 1702.4 Id. at 3. According to Father, “everyone knew about [Father’s AA] conviction in early February,”5 and CYS did not file its motion for a finding of aggravated circumstances until March, beyond the 21-day filing deadline prescribed by Rule 1702. Id. at 4; see also id. (Father requesting the juvenile court deny CYS’s motion due to the untimeliness of its aggravated circumstances motion). Following argument, the juvenile court concluded that CYS timely filed its motion, reasoning that Father’s AA conviction was not finalized until the trial court sentenced him. Id. at 8. The juvenile court took “judicial notice of the plea and sentence of [Father,]” and found that aggravated circumstances existed. Id.; see also Aggravated Circumstances Order, 5/15/26 (finding aggravated circumstances existed, and directing that “[n]o efforts are to be made to … reunify [] Child with [] Father.”).6 Father timely filed a notice of ____________________________________________ 4 Pennsylvania Rule of Juvenile Court Procedure 1702 provides that “[a] motion for a finding of aggravating circumstances shall be filed with the clerk of courts by the county agency as soon as possible[,] but no later than twenty- one days from the determination by the county agency that aggravated circumstances exist.” Pa.R.J.C.P. 1702. 5 Father’s criminal docket sheet reflects that he entered his guilty plea on January 6, 2026. In his brief, Father argues that CYS “knew of [Father’s plea], at the latest, on February 4, 2026, as noted in a Permanency Review Order issued that day and filed February 6, 2026.” Father’s Brief at 10; see also Permanency Review Order, 2/6/26, at 3. 6 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6341(c.1) (“If the court finds from clear and convincing evidence that aggravated circumstances exist, the court shall determine whether or not reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need for (Footnote Continued Next Page) -4- J-S36002-26 appeal and contemporaneous Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) concise statement. On July 1, 2026, the juvenile court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion. Father raises a single issue for our review: “Did error occur where the [juvenile] court granted a motion for [a] finding of aggravated circumstances, over the objection of Father, [] and despite the fact that the motion was untimely?” Father’s Brief at 4 (capitalization and punctuation modified). Initially, we acknowledge our well-settled standard of review of a juvenile court’s decision in a dependency case: The standard of review in dependency cases requires an appellate court to accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the juvenile court if they are supported by the record; but it does not require the appellate court to accept the juvenile court’s inferences or conclusions of law. As such, we review for an abuse of discretion. Interest of M.G., 331 A.3d 703, 716 (Pa. Super. 2025) (citations omitted); see also Interest of C.B., 357 A.3d 1015, 1027 (Pa. Super. 2026) (“[W]e must exercise our independent judgment in reviewing the court’s determination, as opposed to its findings of fact, and must order whatever right and justice dictate.” (citation omitted)). Instantly, Father concedes that his conviction of AA “fits the definition of aggravated circumstances pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.[A. §] 6203.” Father’s ____________________________________________ removing the child from the home or to preserve and reunify the family shall be made or continue to be made ….”); id. § 6351(b) (providing that “no new or additional reasonable efforts” to preserve and reunify a family are required if the court has “determined that aggravated circumstances exist”). -5- J-S36002-26 Brief at 8; see also id. at 10 (Father stating that, “[q]uite obviously, aggravated circumstances existed at the time of” his AA conviction). According to Father, however, “[w]hile the surface issue involves a finding of aggravated circumstances, the matter is actually one of statutory interpretation.” Id. at 7. Father contends that the juvenile court erred by concluding CYS’s aggravated circumstances motion was timely-filed, because the event which triggered CYS’s filing deadline (i.e., Father’s conviction) was his guilty plea, and not his judgment of sentence. Id. at 8. In support of his argument, Appellant cites several criminal and administrative statutes defining a “conviction” as a plea or finding of guilt, as opposed to a subsequent imposition of sentence.7 ____________________________________________ 7 See Father’s Brief at 8-10 (citing (1) 204 Pa. Code § 91.38 (for purposes of attorney discipline, and in accordance with an attorney’s professional obligation to report misconduct, defining a “conviction” as “any guilty verdict, whether after trial by judge or jury, or finding of guilt, and any plea of guilty or nolo contendere that has been accepted by the court, whether or not sentence has been imposed”); (2) 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 6501(a) (stating that “[f]or the purposes of” the Vehicle Code, “a conviction includes a plea of guilty, a plea of nolo contendere, a finding of guilty by a court or an unvacated forfeiture of bail or collateral deposited to secure a defendant’s appearance in court”); (3) 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9718.2(c) (stating that “reasonable notice of the Commonwealth’s intention to proceed under [the mandatory sentencing statute for repeat sexual offenders] shall be provided after conviction and before sentencing”); (4) 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6102 (stating that under Chapter 61 of the Crimes Code, a “conviction” is defined as “a finding of guilty or the entering of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, whether or not judgment of sentence has been imposed”); (5) 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9799.12 (stating that under Subchapter H of the Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 (Footnote Continued Next Page) -6- J-S36002-26 Father further argues that CYS’s failure to satisfy the timing requirements of Pa.R.J.C.P. 1702 and 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6334(b)(2) constituted a fatal defect: While [Rule] 1702 mentions only county agencies, [Section] 6334(b)(2) authorizes the filing of aggravated circumstances by both [county] agencies and attorneys for children. Notably, the provision [of Section 6334(b)(2)] requiring action within 21 days is applied only to [county] agencies and not attorneys. … Reading the words of [Rule 1702 and Section 6334(b)(2)], it is clear that the invocation of a three-week deadline upon [county] agencies is mandatory and imperative. Had the legislature intended otherwise, it would have authorized the ability to file without a time limit, as it did for the attorneys of children. Father’s Brief at 10-11 (paragraph break omitted); see also id. at 11 (arguing that “[p]rejudice occurred by the granting of [CYS’s aggravated circumstances m]otion, as it permitted []CYS to cease efforts at reunifying Father and Child”). Finally, Father suggests that the juvenile court’s determination that CYS timely filed its aggravated circumstances motion runs counter to the public policy underlying the Juvenile Act. Id. at 11. Father points out that the “philosophy of the dependency system dictates that [county] agencies should move as quickly as possible.” Id. at 12. Consequently, Father argues, county agencies have “every right to file motions for finding[s] of aggravated ____________________________________________ Pa.C.S.A. § 9799.10 et seq.), “unless the context clearly indicates otherwise[,]” the word “convicted” “[i]ncludes conviction by entry of plea of guilty or nolo contendere, conviction after trial or court martial and a finding of not guilty due to insanity or of guilty but mentally ill”)). -7- J-S36002-26 circumstances[,] within 21 days[,] against parties who enter [guilty] pleas for designated offenses.” Id. CYS and Child’s GAL (collectively, Appellees)8 respond that Section 6334(b)(2) does not require a county agency to file an aggravated circumstances motion “within [21] days of a conviction or guilty plea. Rather, the statute requires that the [a]gency file the motion ‘as soon [as] possible but no later than 21 days from the determination by the county agency that aggravated circumstances exist.” Appellees’ Brief at 4-5 (quoting 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6334(b)(2)) (italics and bold in original). Appellees point out that following entry of his plea, “Father had the option to ask to withdraw his guilty plea.” Id. at 5 (citing Commonwealth v. Randolph, 718 A.2d 1242, 1243 (Pa. 1998) (“[A]lthough there is no absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea, properly received by the trial court, it is clear that a request made before sentencing should be liberally allowed.” (citation and ellipsis omitted)). Appellees agree with the juvenile court that CYS reasonably believed that aggravated circumstances did not exist until Father was sentenced: “While a [guilty] plea may constitute a conviction, [CYS] certainly presented a stronger argument that aggravated circumstances ____________________________________________ 8 Appellees filed a joint brief, referred to herein as Appellees’ Brief. Mother’s court-appointed counsel submitted a letter indicating that Mother takes no position in the instant appeal. -8- J-S36002-26 existed following sentencing, after which it became significantly more difficult to withdraw a plea.” Id. Alternatively, Appellees contend that even if CYS’s motion was untimely, the fact that Section 6334(b)(2) imposes no filing deadline on a child’s attorney “supports the notion that any timing defect … is procedural and prejudice-based.” Id. at 6; see also id. (observing that “Father was provided notice, counsel, an opportunity to be heard, and a full hearing to adjudicate the issue of aggravated circumstances.”). As the matter before us calls for the interpretation of statutory text, we acknowledge our standard of review: In matters involving statutory interpretation, our standard of review is de novo, and we apply a plenary scope of review. Steets v. Celebration Fireworks, Inc., 335 A.3d 1076, 1089 (Pa. 2025). We focus on the text of a statute to ascertain its purpose and meaning, as it is the best available evidence of the General Assembly’s intent. Id.; see also Commonwealth v. Spence, 91 A.3d 44, 46 (Pa. 2014) (“Generally, the best indication of the General Assembly’s intent may be found in the plain language of the statute.”). When clear and unambiguous, our rules of construction forbid circumvention of the text “under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.” Steets, 335 A.3d at 1089 (quoting 1 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 1921(b)). In ascertaining legislative intent, the words of a statute must be read with an understating of the context in which they appear, as this Court “does not dissect statutory text and interpret it in a vacuum.” Commonwealth v. Kingston, 143 A.3d 917, 924 (Pa. 2016). Thus, we ascertain the meaning of words both within their immediate context and with due consideration of their place in the overall statutory scheme, which at times may narrow the plain meaning of a term that may carry varied meanings outside of those contexts. See A.S. v. Pa. State Police, 143 A.3d 896, 906 (Pa. 2016). Thus, although a dictionary definition may be adequate for most interpretative tasks, we must be -9- J-S36002-26 mindful that in “law as in life, ... the same words, placed in different contexts, sometimes mean different things.” Yates v. United States, 574 U.S. 528, 537 (2015). In re Chester Water Auth. Tr., 349 A.3d 892, 913 (Pa. 2026) (citations modified). “The General Assembly has instructed courts to ascribe the ‘common and approved meaning’ to its chosen words and phrases, unless the word or phrase is technical, has acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning, or is expressly defined in the statute.” Commonwealth v. Clayborne, 356 A.3d 187, 200 (Pa. Super. 2026) (quoting 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1903(a)); see also Commonwealth v. Gamby, 283 A.3d 298, 307 (Pa. 2022) (explaining that when a word or phrase is not defined in a statute, “this does not ipso facto render the phrase ambiguous”; and that in determining the “common and approved usage” of a word or phrase, the Supreme Court “has on numerous occasions engaged in an examination of dictionary definitions.” (citations omitted)); Goodwin v. Goodwin, 280 A.3d 937, 944 (Pa. 2022) (“[O]ther interpretive rules of statutory construction are to be utilized only where the statute at issue is ambiguous[.]” (citation omitted)). “When the parties read a statute in two different ways and the statutory language is reasonably capable of either construction, the language is ambiguous.” Reibenstein v. Barax, 286 A.3d 222, 229 n.20 (Pa. 2022) (citation omitted). Significantly, “[t]his Court may not add provisions that the General Assembly has omitted unless the phrase is necessary to the - 10 - J-S36002-26 construction of the statute.” Carmen Enterprises, Inc. v. Goldin, ___ A.3d ___, 2026 WL 1659716, *28 (Pa. Super. 2026) (citation omitted). “We may not add words or phrases in construing a statute unless the added words are necessary for a proper interpretation, do not conflict with the obvious intent of the statute, and do not in any way affect its scope and operation.” Commonwealth v. Garner, 301 A.3d 462, 468 (Pa. Super. 2023) (citation omitted). Here, the parties advance competing arguments concerning the event that triggers a county agency’s deadline to file a motion for a finding of aggravated circumstances. Accordingly, we set forth the relevant statutes and Rule of Juvenile Court Procedures. As it is pertinent to our analysis, we recite the Juvenile Act’s definition of aggravated circumstances in full: “Aggravated circumstances.” Any of the following circumstances: (1) The child is in the custody of a county agency and either: (i) the identity or whereabouts of the parents is unknown and cannot be ascertained and the parent does not claim the child within three months of the date the child was taken into custody; or (ii) the identity or whereabouts of the parents is known and the parents have failed to maintain substantial and continuing contact with the child for a period of six months. (2) The child or another child of the parent has been the victim of physical abuse resulting in serious bodily injury, sexual violence or aggravated physical neglect by the parent. - 11 - J-S36002-26 (3) The parent of the child has been convicted of any of the following offenses where the victim was a child: (i) criminal homicide under 18 Pa.C.S. Ch. 25 (relating to criminal homicide); (ii) a felony under 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702 (relating to aggravated assault), 3121 (relating to rape), 3122.1 (relating to statutory sexual assault), 3123 (relating to involuntary deviate sexual intercourse), 3124.1 (relating to sexual assault) or 3125 (relating to aggravated indecent assault). (iii) A misdemeanor under 18 Pa.C.S. § 3126 (relating to indecent assault). (iv) An equivalent crime in another jurisdiction. (4) The attempt, solicitation or conspiracy to commit any of the offenses set forth in paragraph (3). (5) The parental rights of the parent have been involuntarily terminated with respect to a child of the parent. (6) The parent of the child is required to register as a sexual offender under Subchapter H of Chapter 97 (relating to registration of sexual offenders) or to register with a sexual offender registry in another jurisdiction or foreign country. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302 (emphasis added). Section 6334 sets forth a petitioner’s pleading requirements, and establishes a filing deadline that applies only to county agencies: (b) Aggravated circumstances.— *** (2) The existence of aggravated circumstances may be alleged by the county agency or the child’s attorney. If the county agency reasonably believes that aggravated circumstances exist, it shall file the appropriate petition as soon as possible but no later - 12 - J-S36002-26 than 21 days from the determination by the county agency that aggravated circumstances exist. (3) A petition for dependency or a permanency hearing that alleges aggravated circumstances shall include a statement of the facts the county agency or the child’s attorney intends to prove to support the allegation. A criminal conviction shall not be required to allege the existence of aggravated physical neglect or physical abuse resulting in serious bodily injury or sexual violence committed by the parent. Id. § 6334(b)(2), (3) (emphasis added). Related Rule of Juvenile Court Procedure 1702 largely tracks the language of Section 6334(b)(2) regarding a county agency’s filing deadline, providing as follows: A motion for a finding of aggravating circumstances shall be filed with the clerk of courts by the county agency as soon as possible but no later than twenty-one days from the determination by the county agency that aggravated circumstances exist. Pa.R.J.C.P. 1702 (emphasis added).9 ____________________________________________ 9 We note that, unlike 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6334(b)(2), Pa.R.J.C.P. 1702 does not contain the phrase “reasonably believes.” Reading the Rule and statute together, however, we have no difficulty concluding that the county agency’s “determination,” described in Rule 1702, must be “reasonable,” as set forth in Section 6334(b)(2). See In re Three Pa. Skill Amusement Devices, 358 A.3d 385, 408 n.122 (Pa. 2026) (“[S]tatutes that are in pari materia may be construed together, so that inconsistencies in one statute may be resolved by looking at another statute on the same subject.” (citation omitted)); see also Lohmiller v. Weidenbaugh, 469 A.2d 578, 580 (Pa. 1983) (stating that statutes and rules of court relating to the same subject matter “must be read in pari materia so that effect can be given to both” (citations omitted)). To omit reasonableness from the county agency’s determination would obviate the prescription, found in both the Rule and statute, that the county agency (Footnote Continued Next Page) - 13 - J-S36002-26 A review of the above authorities plainly reveals that a county agency’s “reasonable belie[f]” that aggravated circumstances exist triggers the agency’s obligation to file its motion. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6334(b)(2); Pa.R.J.C.P. 1702. Here, however, of the numerous bases for asserting the existence of aggravated circumstances, CYS solely and specifically pleaded Father’s conviction of AA. See Motion for Aggravated Circumstances Finding, 3/12/26, at 2.10 Therefore, to give effect to Section 6302 in its entirety, it is likewise plain that the event that triggered CYS’s filing deadline in the instant case was its “reasonable belie[f]” that Father was “convicted” of AA. See Commonwealth v. Gurung, 239 A.3d 187, 191 (Pa. Super. 2020) (“Courts are to presume ‘that the Generally Assembly intends the entire statute to be effective and certain.’” (quoting 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1922(2)); see also id. at 192 (noting that in interpreting a statute we must start from the premise “that the legislature placed every word, sentence and provision in the statute for some purpose” (citation omitted)). Having identified that CYS’s “reasonable belief” that Father had been “convicted” of AA was the event that triggered CYS’s filing deadline in the ____________________________________________ act “as soon as possible,” and would permit a county agency to unreasonably delay its determination that aggravated circumstances exist. 10 CYS’s aggravated circumstances motion is a form document that lists, seriatim, each definition of aggravated circumstances, with corresponding checkboxes. See generally Motion for Aggravated Circumstances Finding, 3/12/26. - 14 - J-S36002-26 instant case, we turn to the parties’ opposing definitions of “convicted” to determine whether the term is ambiguous as it is used in Section 6302.11 Father correctly observes that numerous statutes use the term “convicted,” and its permutations, to connote a plea or adjudication of guilt, without a corresponding judgment of sentence. See n.6, supra. Indeed, our Supreme Court has similarly construed the terms. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Coleman, 285 A.3d 599, 608 (Pa. 2022) (for purposes of sentencing enhancement for those “previously [] convicted at any time of murder,” defining “convicted” as “to find or declare guilty of an offense or crime by the verdict or decision of a court or other authority” (citations omitted)); Commonwealth v. Beasley, 479 A.2d 460, 464 (Pa. 1984) (defining “conviction” as a guilty verdict for purposes of aggravating circumstances necessary for imposition of capital punishment in subsequent murder case). However, our review discloses12 that in other instances, our appellate courts have understood the term “conviction” to require a judgment of sentence. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Kimmel, 565 A.2d 426, 428 (Pa. 1989) (“When the term ‘conviction’ is used in a statute, it means the ____________________________________________ 11 The Juvenile Act does not define “convicted.” 12 The only legal authority Appellees present in support of their conclusion that CYS “presented a stronger argument that aggravated circumstances existed following sentencing” is Randolph, supra. Appellees’ Brief at 5. - 15 - J-S36002-26 ascertainment of the guilt of the accused and judgment thereon by the court[.]” (citation and some quotation marks omitted); Commonwealth v. Minnich, 95 A. 565, 567 (Pa. 1915) (“When the law speaks of conviction, it means judgment, and not merely a verdict, which, in common parlance, is called a conviction.” (quoting Smith v. Commonwealth, 14 Serg. & Rawle 69, 70, 1826 WL 2217, at *2 (Pa. 1826)); see also Coleman, 285 A.3d at 614-16 (Donohue, J., concurring) (detailing the historical tension between the differing definitions of “convicted” and “conviction”; noting that “[o]ver the years, [the Supreme] Court has attributed to the word ‘convicted’ … a ‘popular’ as well as a ‘technical’ meaning”; explaining the “popular” definition of “convicted” “refers to a guilty verdict,” and the “technical” definition of “convicted” “has been understood as a judgment or sentence upon the finding of guilt.” (citations omitted)); Commonwealth v. Thompson, 106 A.3d 742, 767 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Bowes, J., concurring) (same). In its most recent interpretation of the word “convicted,” the Coleman Court largely resolved this historical tension by assigning to “convicted” its common and approved usage. In Coleman, the appellant argued that the mandatory sentencing provision of 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9715(a)13 does not apply “where the offenses and the deaths were simultaneous[.]” Id. at 605. ____________________________________________ 13 Section 9715(a) provides, in pertinent part, that “any person convicted of murder of the third degree in this Commonwealth who has previously been convicted at any time of murder or voluntary manslaughter in this (Footnote Continued Next Page) - 16 - J-S36002-26 The Coleman Court rejected the appellant’s argument and, pertinent to the instant case, ascribed to the word “convicted” its “plain and ordinary meaning”: The word “convicted” or “convict” means “to find or declare guilty of an offense or crime by the verdict or decision of a court or other authority.” [Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, 1798 (3d ed. 1993)] at 499; see also BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY[,] 421-22 (11th ed. 2019) (defining “convict” as “to prove or officially announce (a criminal defendant) to be guilty of a crime after proceedings in a law court; specif., to find (a person) guilty of a criminal offense upon a criminal trial, a plea of guilty, or a plea of nolo contendere (no contest)”). In view of these definitions, the first portion of the key phrase in Section 9715(a) (i.e., “who has previously been convicted”) dictates that the sentencing enhancement applies to any person convicted of third-degree murder who has been found or proven guilty of murder before in time. Id. at 608 (emphasis added; brackets omitted); see also id. at 608 n.5 (responding to Justice Donohue’s concurring opinion, and questioning “whether a ‘technical’ definition of ‘conviction’ clearly remains….”). Here, in its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the juvenile court explained its rationale for concluding that CYS timely filed its aggravated circumstances motion: [Father] was sentenced for [AA] on March 3, 2026. CYS determined that on March 3, 2026, [] an aggravate[ed] circumstance existed. On March 12, 2026, CYS filed a motion for [a] finding of aggravate[ed] circumstances. According to [CYS], “We didn’t have a basis to file for aggravate[ed] circumstances ____________________________________________ Commonwealth or of the same or substantially equivalent crime in any other jurisdiction shall be sentenced to life imprisonment….” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9715(a). - 17 - J-S36002-26 until the [criminal] case was completed. The case wasn’t completed until the [trial c]ourt issued sentence.” N.T., 5/13/26, at 5. Th[e juvenile c]ourt agrees. To be clear, the [21]-day filing period does not commence from the time that [Father] entered his plea or from the time of his sentencing. It commenced from the time of “the determination by the county agency that aggravated circumstances exist.” Pa.R.J.C.P. 1702; see also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6334(b)(2). The record reflects that the determination was made by CYS on March 3, 2026, and that CYS filed the [aggravated circumstances] motion on March 12, 2026. This was well within the [21]-day filing period, and thus timely. Juvenile Court Opinion, 7/1/26, at 3 (unpaginated) (punctuation and some citations modified; record citation added). Upon review, we conclude the juvenile court erred by determining that CYS timely filed its aggravated circumstances motion. As explained above, under the facts of this case, CYS’s obligation to file an aggravated circumstances motion commenced when it reasonably believed that Father was convicted of AA. Accepting the juvenile court’s analysis, i.e., that the 21- day filing deadline commenced solely upon CYS’s “determination” that aggravated circumstances exist, would permit a county agency to ensure compliance with Rule 1702 and Section 6334(b)(2) by declining to formalize its determination until a date of its own choosing, and render the 21-day deadline a nullity. See Gurung, 239 A.3d at 191.14 ____________________________________________ 14 Indeed, CYS elected to assert the existence of aggravated circumstances based upon Father’s AA conviction, despite alleging in its original dependency petition (filed May 23, 2025) that Father “confessed to squeezing [C]hild and (Footnote Continued Next Page) - 18 - J-S36002-26 Further, we conclude that CYS’s determination that Father was not “convicted” of AA until the trial court imposed sentenced was unreasonable. As the Coleman Court held, the “plain and ordinary” meaning of “convicted” is “to find or declare guilty of an offense or crime by the verdict or decision of a court or other authority.” Coleman, 285 A.3d at 608 (citation omitted). The competing “technical” definition, which requires a sentence in addition to a finding of guilt, cannot be applied to Section 6302 without reading into the statute a sentencing requirement the legislature did not include. Section 6302’s definition of aggravated circumstances, premised on a parent being “convicted” of an enumerated offense, contains no sentencing provision, and we may not add what the legislature omitted. See Garner, 301 A.3d at 466 (“[W]e may not add provisions that the General Assembly has omitted unless the phrase is necessary to the construction of the statute.” (citation omitted)). Consequently, we discern no ambiguity in Section 6302’s use of “convicted.”15 ____________________________________________ hearing popping sounds on numerous occasions since [C]hild was born.” Dependency Petition, 5/23/25, at 3; see also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302 (providing that aggravated circumstances exist where “[t]he child or another child of the parent has been the victim of physical abuse resulting in serious bodily injury, sexual violence or aggravated physical neglect by the parent.”). 15 Even if “convicted,” as used in Section 6302, were ambiguous, our analysis of the term as used in the Adoption Act would resolve any ambiguity in favor of our conclusion. See In re Davis, 465 A.2d 614, 625-26 (Pa. 1983) (“The Adoption Act and the Juvenile Act are in pari materia and must be construed together as one act to accomplish the common purpose.”); see also Kozol v. Kozol, 97 A.3d 767, 771 (Pa. Super. 2014) (observing that in pari materia construction of statutes may only be employed “where the terms of the statute (Footnote Continued Next Page) - 19 - J-S36002-26 At the aggravated circumstances hearing, counsel for CYS did not dispute Father’s assertion that “everyone knew about [Father’s AA] conviction in early February [2026.]” N.T., 5/13/26, at 4. The certified record further reflects that the juvenile court’s February 6, 2026, permanency review order acknowledged that Father pled guilty to AA on January 6, 2026. See Permanency Review Order, 2/6/26, at 2. Consequently, CYS’s 21-day filing deadline commenced, at the latest, on February 6, 2026, when the juvenile court entered its order. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6302, 6334(b)(2); Pa.R.J.C.P. 1702; Coleman, 285 A.3d at 608. Because CYS did not file its aggravated circumstances motion until March 12, 2026, thirteen days beyond the 21-day deadline set forth in Rule 1702 and Section 6334(b)(2), the juvenile court’s determination that it was timely was erroneous. ____________________________________________ to be construed are ambiguous.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)). In Interest of M.E., 283 A.3d 820, 831 (Pa. Super. 2022), the appellant argued the orphans’ court erred in terminating his parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(9)(ii) (providing as grounds for termination that the “parent has been convicted of … a felony under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702 (relating to aggravated assault)”), because his conviction followed a nolo contendere plea. In rejecting the appellant’s argument, we explained that “where, as here, a statute attaches legal consequences to the mere fact of a conviction, proof of a conviction, even if it followed a nolo contendere plea, is enough to satisfy the statute.” Id. (citation omitted). We concluded, therefore, that the county agency “satisfied its burden by presenting evidence of the nolo plea ….” Id. (citation omitted). Consequently, if any ambiguity existed in Section 6302’s use of the word “convicted,” we would construe the term as meaning a plea or finding of guilt, consistent with Interest of M.E.’s analysis of a statute in the Adoption Act containing language nearly identical to Section 6302. - 20 - J-S36002-26 Having determined that the juvenile court erred in finding CYS’s aggravated circumstances motion timely, we next consider whether that error entitles Father to relief. Father argues that the 21-day deadline imposed by Rule 1702 and Section 6334(b)(2) is “mandatory and imperative”; that its violation requires denial of the motion; and, alternatively, that “[p]rejudice occurred by the granting of the [m]otion, as it permitted []CYS to cease efforts at reunifying Father and Child.” Father’s Brief at 11.16 Instantly, the juvenile court opined that its consideration of CYS’s aggravated circumstances motion, if deemed untimely, was nevertheless permissible: Even if [CYS’s aggravated circumstances] motion was untimely, th[e juvenile c]ourt [was] not precluded from considering it. While it is a requirement that the motion for [a] finding of aggravated circumstances “shall” be filed within the [21-]day period, the word “shall” can be “mandatory or imperative” or it may be “directory and permissive.” See Tyler v. King, 496 A.2d 16, 19 (Pa. Super. 1985). “[I]t has long been the rule in Pennsylvania that the word “shall,” although usually mandatory or imperative when used in a statute, may nonetheless be directory or permissive depending upon the Legislature’s intent.” Id. Discerning the legislature’s